The decrease in numbers of women in leadership positions may have somewhat different causes than the long-existing impediments to women achieving leadership so often discussed, such as chauvinism in education, recruiting and hiring, management, etc.. We might want to consider what has happened in organizations in the last decade or so.
I’ve been following a discussion about the miserable treatment of “our most important assets” in most organizations today. Some argue HR isn’t doing its job, others blame execs.
The question of whether HR should step up its game or executives should lead really raises the point that they should be a team. Yes, I’d like to see HR stand for the vision of employees as appreciating assets. And, I’d like to see executive leaders hire and champion HR leaders who challenge them and articulate a powerful vision of developing and retaining vital employee contribution.
Unfortunately, I’m seeing CEO’s and COO’s hiring HR chiefs for their subservience, their acquiesence, their grooming of executive egos, and their ruthless willingness to sacrifice any employee, and their own HR staff, in order to please the boss and advance their career. Since HR professionals from inside the company are more likely to stand up for employees, executives seem to be hiring HR carpetbaggers who sweep in, make big noise about cleaning up, and sweep off to the next post when their short-term strategies begin to fail.
I think we need a series of changes:
in the presentation of HR philosophy, practice and value in our business schools, especially at the MBA level;
in focusing the business press on the great stories of sustained appreciation of human assets and the payoffs for the bottom line;
in the lecture circuit of management and leadership gurus to include voices that actually have managed for development of the best in employees and the best for employees; and
in the selection of corporate board members for their commitment to the long-term success of the business and the employees, rather than for self-promotion and short-term gains.
I was a Personnel Director once in the dark past, and I argued to change the name to Human Resources to encourage valuing people as “our most important asset”. I’ve been enormously chastened by the seeming result that employees are seen similarly to natural resources– extract what you can and dump them in a ravine. Even so, I still hold out hope that, as we discover in so many ways that our heedless consumption of essential natural resources is coming back to haunt us, we can make real progress toward valuing the genius and the effort of our producers at least as much as what they produce.
I’ve been proud to be part of an extended team that has embodied a commitment to honoring the individuals we work with, believing we have as much to learn from each of them as we have to share. Often, the real challenge is in helping the organizational sponsors raise their sights above the level of “minimum acceptable behavior” to envision a workplace where employees are eager to learn about others and to discover their own gifts in the process. Facilitating that kind of climate is the work I love. I’ve come away spiritually deepened and enormously optimistic about the potential for the human race.
My disappointment is, in part, seeded by anticipating working with big organizations who could do so much better for their employees and communities than they are aiming for. Some of these organizations have a lot of pain inside and dragons at the gate. They are missing an opportunity to do well while they do good, and I always have hopes for such organizations to achieve their highest potential in that regard.
Truth is, in a healthier economy, I didn’t respond to such RFP’s. We had as much work as we could properly handle and our clients shared our vision of corporate citizenship and human potential. Today, I’m taking time to look at those kinds of requests I could pass on before, and I’m really saddened to discover how many organizations are still operating in a mindset reminiscent of the late ’70s and early 80’s. At some level, I had come to believe we’d made more progress. Finally, I guess I’m also coming to grips with the fact that there is so much more to be done and the length of time we may still need to work to bring our vision to fruition.
Ah well, no rest for the wicked!
I was recently asked that question, and having just come from a really stimulating presentation on recent insights about the brain (Thanks to Ginny Storj0hann), here’s what I’m thinking today about the emotional content of our national health care conversation.
The current phenomenon of healthcare debate seems to me to be made up of several overlapping and interacting elements, some of which are explained by brain-based change research, U.S. culture and political maneuvering:
1. Fearful reaction to having a Black President and all the changes in status that implies for a great many people (If People of Color are going to take real leadership positions, then the old order in which Whites, no matter what their position in the world, were always socially superior, is shifting).
2. A strong sense that the world is changing in ways that are unpredictable, uncontrollable, and potentially painful.
3. Fear that the government (or any other source of identifiable authority) will dictate important aspects of our lives at a time when many are feeling especially powerless
4. “Katie bar the door” polarity thinking that believes that any cooperation or compromise foretells eventual utter defeat
5. A U.S. cultural bias, rooted in our majority Euro-American heritage, toward individuality that leads many to be innately suspicious of new programs for collective assistance, believing that we are morally responsible to take care of ourselves, rather than falling back on help from others to meet our needs.
6. A resurgence in the long pattern of cynical and historically successful race-baiting and commie-calling by political operatives that oppose progressive change and loss of profiteering freedom.
All of these elements, and more, are weaving together to greatly intensify the natural debate on this complex topic. I think this is likely predictive of the reactions we will face as we confront many more big challenges, such as global climate change, economic restructuring, population shifts, etc. I’m not looking forward to the arguments, invective, and panic behavior we may experience, but it does seem like part of the process of hospicing the old ways and midwifing the new.
Myself, I’m hoping to stay centered on my belief that humans can find our way to ingenious collaborative solutions that will take us beyond the turmoil of these “interesting times” and into a new, more sustainable pattern of living on Earth and with each other.
